To provide healthy criticism, I think the redesign suggested ignores one thing - the social experience.<p>In the redesign, the significance of project is diminished and the page feels more like a directory listing. This is IMHO what bitbucket and the rest are doing wrong; and what Github does right.<p>I understand the need for simplification - that's great, just perhaps take into account the fact that for people working on a repository - it is not just a listing of files but an experience of working on a project. I feel that Github takes care to blur the boundary between the two.
I've been trying to explain to people lately how to use Github and every time I tell them to go to "Commits" they get totally lost. Everything is the same grey bland, there are a total of about 7 navigation bars, and a lot of clutter. The fact that they get lost is a clear sign that something is very wrong.<p>This design is obviously a recognition of the problems and a suggestion of what could be. It's not 100% right but it illustrates the possibilities.<p>I'm very confident that the guys at GH know this though and I'm looking forward to what they come up with.
Removing the repository URL is a terrible thing. That is a key piece of information that anyone trying to get started with a project needs to know. Maybe it could be hidden after you've pulled but it needs to be there in the beginning, at least.
I'm unsure why Github needs to be simplified and I certainly don't want to see it simplified at the expense of functionality, as is shown in this article. I can't stand this constant drive to simplify everything, which is more and more plaguing software.